Wednesday Bolts – 5.9.12

A quick recap of events: The Nuggets forced a Game 6, meaning that the Thunder likely won’t play this weekend. It means Kendrick Perkins gets a little more rest to heal, and also means that Metta World Peace will play in Game 1 should the Lakers advance.

Championship experience matters, writes Benjamin Morris of Skeptical Sports: “Of course, thinking back, it seems like picking the winner is sometimes easy, as the league often has an obvious “best team” that is extremely unlikely to ever lose a 7 game series. So perhaps the better question to ask is: How much do you gain by including the championship test in step 1? The answer is: a lot. Over the same period, the team with the league’s best record has won only 10/28 championships, or ~35%. So the 5-by-5 model almost doubles your hit rate. And in case you’re wondering, using Margin of Victory, SRS, or any other advanced stat instead of W-L record doesn’t help: other methods vary from doing slightly worse to slightly better.” (via)

Steve Kerr makes a case for a new age limit in the NBA on Grantland: “And it’s a shame, because both sides would have been helped by that age limit bumping to 20. The league would be stronger for every reason discussed above. The union would benefit because veterans would hold their jobs for an extra season. And fans would win because the game would be better — we’d see an influx of elite young talent arriving into the league more prepared, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally. If that translates into better basketball, then isn’t that what we all want? I realize I may sound like the old guy — stuck in his ways, out of touch with today’s players — but I know what college meant to me; I know what it meant to most of my peers. And I know that the NBA would be a stronger league if its players stuck around school a little longer, too.”

Darnell Mayberry on what happens if no Perk: “To understand how much of a difference-maker Perkins can be, look no further than the last regular-season matchup between the Thunder and Lakers. In that contest, Perkins was so good he took Bynum completely out of the game — literally. Lakers coach Mike Brown benched an ineffective Bynum in favor of Jordan Hill. Bynum scored just 10 points on 5-of-15 shooting with eight rebounds and five blocks in 29 minutes. Bynum scored just six points on 3-of-8 shooting against Perkins. But if Perkins must miss a game or two, Oklahoma City still should be able to compete with confidence. Two years ago, long before Perkins was anywhere near OKC’s radar, the Thunder had marginal success against the Lakers in the postseason. Oklahoma City eventually lost the series 4-2 but came within a Pau Gasol tip-in of forcing a Game 7.”

Mike Brown on the idea of playoff tanking to get World Peace back: “Two guys told me that (Monday), they said that the Twitter world is suggesting that we do that,” Brown said after shootaround on Tuesday. “That we lose (Game 5) so that we can extend the series to get Metta World Peace back. I’m not even going to answer that. To me, that’s a joke. When they said that to me, I just laughed. No, if we can win the game, we’re going to try to win the game. There’s never been a time that I ever thought partially about losing a game for this to happen or that to happen. So, if Metta comes back in 10 games or if he comes back in one game, I’m not worried about that. I’m worried about tonight and who can play tonight and get the win tonight, period. Nothing else. But the Twitter world is worried about all that other stuff.”

David Aldridge of NBA.com: “The Thunder looked really impressive against the Mavericks, who didn’t play badly at all, even though they were swept. The difference between teams, even in a 4-0 series, is so small. But OKC won every important battle. The NBA is relentless; one moment you’re a champion, the next, you’re out.”

Let me say this: I’ve been asked in email or Twitter form for updates on Perk about 200 times. He’s day to day. That’s it. That’s the latest. If I knew something more, I would tell you. I wouldn’t withhold information for fun.

@DavyTheWise It is a race issue. I'm white but I'm not stupid enough to think that race doesn't play into this. Even if Kerr doesn't have a single shred of race motivation in this, the fact is that I can't think of one white player that came straight out of High School.

@Crow@FF_pickups Sorry, i didnt read all of the comments above and i may be repeating things, but i wanted to make two points re: age limit

1- If it really hurts the product and teams, nba teams should just not take a flier on those "immature" players, but they do....therefore it is incumbent on those teams to develop the players and deal w/ maturity issues. look at the thunder program.

2- its not clear being in college will help someone develop more than being in the nba. Westbrook played two guard in a hyper conservative offense at ucla. he developed through being aggressive, attacking, and playing with similarly talented players at the next level

You lost me at NFL. :) Okay, guys, this has been really fun (ha) but exhausting. I think it might be the longest and most contentious thread I've ever stepped into, and I sincerely hope I'm never in a real-life argument with any of you. (I see there's more before I could even hit the Post comment button. Dammit, pickups! Stop!) Later . . .

@FF_pickups But are they doing better or worse compared to their potential? That was the point that I took from Kerr's article. Not that these phenoms wouldn't have success, but that they would be better basketball products than they currently are. Case in point: Andrew Bynum. Dude's an amazing talent, but has 0 maturity. He made the jump from high school. If he'd had college coaching for 2 years, so the argument goes, then he'd have more maturity, possibly a better understanding of how the games works, and so on. Because the college game is less about individual players and more about the colleges, the coaches could afford to crack down on him early, when his immaturity was starting to show up. That's what I took from the article. These guys who left early obviously considered themselves talented enough to make it - and plenty of them did. However, are they ready to handle being a man (to quote the KD interview today)? Who knows. Some are, some aren't. And time will tell too on how these guys come out after leaving the league. Stats say (*pulls a number out of nowhere, but I think it's about right*) 80% of guys are bankrupt/divorced/both within 5 years of leaving pro sports. (I think that's right. I don't remember if it was basketball or football this stat was tied to, but you get where I'm trying to go with it). I'd love to see breakdowns of how guys kept a hold of their money versus how long they were in school. That's why I keep coming back to missing stats. If those stats say that if you go to school for 4 years, only 25% lose their money within 5 years of leaving the league, then that argument for raising the age limit gains a little more weight.

When I am talking about 3,4 and 5 year players, I am saying relative to the early departure guys. The guys in the league who came out early are dominating the ones that didn't. That's my point, if this is really hurting the players who leave early, then wouldn't we see them not do quite as well as the ones who stay? It's the opposite with Duncan being the only notable exception.

@FF_pickups ...I trust you mean parity, not parody. Slight difference between the two.

That's fair enough. As I said earlier, his argument is a stats-based argument that we don't have access to the stats for, so we can't call him on it other than by the eyeball test, which comes down to opinions.

I would disagree about 3, 4, and 5 year players having no success. Best Examples: Tim Duncan, after 4 years at Wake Forest, Larry Bird, after 4 years at Indiana State - and yes, he was drafted 3 but chose to remain an extra year. Not trying to be contrary, but that statement is just not true. But, even Nick Collison or Eric Maynor on the Thunder are 4 year players, and are doing well for themselves. I don't have a full list of players, but there are, at least a few counterexamples to your premise.

"As far as the race stuff (which I’m pretty weary of at this point); if one and done players want to talk about their experience, their input would certainly be valuable. And yes, most of them are going to be black. But that doesn’t make their opinions any more valid or valuable than a white, purple, yellow, or orange player who has done the same thing. That is my point. I will choose to see them as individuals (which they are), treat them as individuals, and talk about them as individuals. I’m not shying away from talking about race because it is sensitive; I just chose not to see a person’s race as a defining part of their identity. It affects their lives, but it affects everyone in different ways. "

And refresh my memory, which white players came straight out of High School again? You should go read about the Nazi's, because that's what you sound like. You're advocating one group exploiting another group because they are in power. I'm sorry, but I won't sign off on that. You just don't see how your apathy towards minorities is due to the fact that you aren't a minority. Therefore, you are a racist. I stand by what I said earlier, an arrogant fool to boot.

I don't buy the 'better product' argument either. I don't, if that were in the least bit true, then there wouldn't the 3 year and 4 year and 5th year seniors have some better success? They have ZERO success in the NBA.

The argument is the same as 'Wow, all of these upsets are due to parody in the NFL' and 'Wow, this isn't how it used to be' 'In the old days, they played better basketball'

Nope, none of those statements are true. Why did the Steelers never go better than 14-2? By the parody argument, they should have won 8 Super Bowls and never lost more than 2 games. They lost at the same rate as the elite teams do today. There are no more upsets nowadays than back in the 70's, go look at the stats. It's the same distributions. The beautiful thing about sports is that it's a meritocracy. If doing it the way they did it in the 70's was better, then people would still do it that way. The fact of the matter, all sports are higher quality today, it's not even close.

Thank you for your input. And yes, that is the question that should have been asked in the first place (instead of accusing some league of mysterious middle age white basketball fans and players of conspiring against black people). I will share my opinion on the matter.

My opinion on that is pretty simple, I think that if they are going to make kids go to college that they should be required to stay at least two years if not three. One and dones ruin college bball in my opinion. It may as well be AAU basketball because no matter how good a team of seniors and jr’s may play together, they aren’t going to have the talent to win a championship or even be competetive when you have the Kentuky’s, Kansas’s, Duke’s (maybe an exception), NC’s etc who get 3 or 4 or 5 players who should/could be in the NBA every year. I haven’t watched much college ball at all recently (this may partially be because of the thunder for me personally as well, but I also think the quality of the game has become very poor). If they aren’t going to raise the age, they should just let the kids decide for themselves out of HS if they should go to school or not. Some of them don’t want to go to college at all, and i think forcing them to go is just against natural laws. College isn’t for everyone, and some people have immediate needs (real or otherwise) that they have the right to pursue the money to meet. I believe that if a team wants to draft a 14 year old, and he has entered himself into the draft, that is their choice (hypothetically of course). The teams do not need to be protected from themselves, if they suck something will change to make them better when someone has the will to change what they are doing (I believe in free markets too). So I guess if I were making the rules I’d go for no age restriction on the draft.

However, as I said in a previous post, the league and the players agreed to a rule. That’s the rule. So I’m really okay with it however they decide to do it.

As far as the race stuff (which I’m pretty weary of at this point); if one and done players want to talk about their experience, their input would certainly be valuable. And yes, most of them are going to be black. But that doesn’t make their opinions any more valid or valuable than a white, purple, yellow, or orange player who has done the same thing. That is my point. I will choose to see them as individuals (which they are), treat them as individuals, and talk about them as individuals. I’m not shying away from talking about race because it is sensitive; I just chose not to see a person’s race as a defining part of their identity. It affects their lives, but it affects everyone in different ways.

@ThunderChick2010"You're characterizing Kerr's article as an "attempt at coercion". Coercing people to do what?"

Maybe coercion is the wrong word, perhaps better is persuasion.

"Kerr was saying that raising the age limit would not only benefit players, but ultimately be good for the business of the league. The bottom line for him is not race, but the bottom line; i.e., it's all about the money."

My honest opinion is that nobody involved is motivated based on race but the fact of the matter is that the idea of raising the age limit will primarily affect black kids and make more money primarily for affluent whites (more money for the Universities and the NBA). So even though no one is racially motivated, is it still racist? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (or in this case would stink :-) ).

@ThunderChick2010 "While I ran with your pregnancy example, I used it more metaphorically. Think of a high school player "pregnant" with talent and potential headed (prematurely?) to the front lines of the NBA. What if it might be in his best interest to allow his talent to develop in a nurturing environment before letting him throw himself into the harsh environment of the league?"

I don't buy this argument. Assuming that these 'busts' are 1st round draft picks, they 30th pick is guaranteed minimum 2 million dollars. And we're protecting him how?? While we just cost Lebron, Kobe and Garnett each 75 million.

"I understand you're probably saying that while this might be true--that is, he might be better off by waiting--it should still be his decision."

Actually, no, I don't even buy that premise. I think that the average amount of money per college skipper is far less in that scenario. Consider that of the top 7 american players (based off of NBA rank ESPN) they had a combined 7 years of college experience, so on average, by forcing 3 years of college, you've cut another 2 years/player which equates to ~25m/year * 2 = 50 million dollars per player that those guys lost on career earnings. That makes up for a whole lot of the '2 million dollar busts'.

"*deep breath* You're not going to like this . . . but I think you're being unfair in your replies to Davy. You guys obviously disagree and have offended each other. You just can't call someone naive, foolish, arrogant, racist, superior, etc. and expect them to be receptive to anything else you might have to say."

It's totally true. I was really mad when he passively aggressively attacked me and my opinion and then he feigned innocence. At that point, I just went guns blazing while trying to stay true to my opinion.

As far as player development (which, if I recall, was one or two of the 6 points Kerr brought up in his article) goes, I would have thought that the insight of a NBA player, GM, and professional analyst into that specific arena would have at least been as illuminating to everyone as I found it to be. Someone whose job, at least for a couple of years, was identification and fostering of talent - by no means an easy task - should provide an opinion worth considering, at least. Now, whether or not he was a good or bad evaluator and developer, that I have no clue, nor do I want to opine on it.

I dunno. I found the points as far as putting a better product on the floor by giving these guys more time under a good coach to be well thought out and worth considering.

Let me pose a hypothetical, since we've got a couple of good data points to look at. Take LeBron. In 2003, he enters the NBA out of high school. If we force him to play 1 (or 2) years of college, then he misses out on about a dozen mill. (roughly). However, there would be nothing to stop him either (a) going overseas, like Brandon Jennings or (b) playing in the D-League, like Lat-Williams. In either case, while they may not be earning as much as they would had they been able to go straight into the league, they are still pro - which means LeBron might still get his endorsement deals. This would also serve to raise the quality of play in the D-League if he went that route. I'm not going to say whether this is more exploitative or not, but rather, just trying to think this through and analyze it from all sides.

Of course, the counter example to LeBron is Robert Swift. Yes, him.

You know, I said quick point, but I... uh... kinda lied about that. Sorry.

With passive aggressiveness...here are your quotes "Oh, I see, the World IS black and white...smh" (smh is a passive-aggressive condescending term, you know it and I know it) " ...And your opinion on things seems to be solely wrought by news media talking heads and public opinion? Have your own opinion, please." (more passive-aggressive attacks)

"B. We live on a tiny rock orbiting a very small star (relative to other stars) that is one of 100 billion in our galaxy. There are over 100 Billion (known) galaxies. I am a Geologist, and i think in terms of a 4.5 billion year old earth - on timescales that most people have never even considered. There is not room for racism in my world, we are all human earthlings. If you want to call that naive, then be my guest. Your opinion will not affect my life in any way. "

I'm a geophysicist so I'm well aware of your timescales and I don't know how any of what you wrote here is relevant except to show that you are indeed arrogant. Please, tell me how this paragraph can be interpreted in any other way?

"E. Even if there is a discrepancy in the racial make up of the camps, who cares? "

Wow!! You don't care why an issue is divided by race yet you claim to be enlightened, smh.

"G. We clearly disagree, and that is okay with me. It is a philosophical disagreement, it happens all the time. "

All I am saying is that if the camps of an issue are delineated by race, then that makes it a racial issue and therefore it is important to understand why. You are saying that it doesn't matter how the camps are divided up, we should just listen to Davy the geologist. Is that pretty much summing it up?

Finally, I want to address 1 other point in your rambling argument: If the 2 camps aren't racially segregated.

If you reread all of my posts, I never offered an opinion of whether 18 year olds should be allowed to play in the NBA. I don't have any data to support or deny the hypothesis but neither do you. You have some anecdotal evidence as do I so we are both working on hypothesis. Very early in the thread my statements were qualified by the hypothesis that there are 2 camps with different racial makeups. If there aren't, then, as I said very early in the thread, I'm perfectly fine with or without a limit. I couldn't care less about the actual rule, what I care about is one group trying to exploit another group.

@ThunderChick2010 For the record, this has been to court before, even all the way up to the Supreme Court. Hayward v. NBA (1971) was the case. ( http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/1204/case.html ). Long story short, there's an out of court settlement where the NBA lets the guy play despite the standing rule being "wait 4 years after graduation." This is what really opened up other people to join early.

Dunno if it's been pointed out before, but only 42 players made the jump from High School to the NBA before they stopped allowing it in '06. A whole lot of them were busts, but there are some obvious gems in that group. I have no clue on how to weigh this in the discussion, but I felt it was worth bringing up.

I would say this though. I think that, as fans of basketball, Kerr's arguments make a lot of sense. Why wouldn't we want an improvement of the product. As champions of players, Kerr's argument is extremely offensive and can deny players millions of dollars. As teams and owners, again, economically, Kerr's argument makes the best sense.

What I don't have, unfortunately, is stats on 1 and dones. How many make it big (like KD!)? How many flop (like Odem)? The discussion that Kerr's making is supposedly based on stats. The counter-arguments are based on violations of principles (or perceived violations thereof). I think those stats would genuinely open the discussion up more, as we'd be able to say "oh, you know what, 98% of 1-and-doners never really amount to anything more than the average NBA player" or "you know what, Kerr, that's bogus, there's plenty of guys who are 1-and-done who experience tremendous success." This argument is hard enough to analyze without bringing race or any such notion into it without the stats.

The final question is somewhere close to what I feel the correct one is. From my social perspective, racism is the norm. It is an assumption that the black community is disenfranchised from it's white counter-part. The work is to try to bridge these gaps economically and socially, without damaging cultural difference, wherever they may be.

With that being said I look at Camp 1 & 2 with the perspective of damage and improvement to the community. Raising the age could potentially help young black athletes to act responsibly and maturely with future economic prospects, and help develop talent with a mature attitude toward work. I want to say that I'm not assuming that all black athlete's act irresponsibly and immaturely. If someone is at the level of Lebron, Rose, Durant, and the like, they did not get there by being slackers and goof-offs.

I agree Davey that we are all earthlings, but value, be it moral or economic, exists. I am blessed to be born in a situation that has provided for me opportunities for liberty and achievement. I do consider my place to be one of privilege, and living in Chicago has made it blatantly obvious.

Basketball is beloved in Chicago, a great excuse for when I go to bars I get to clap loud and cheer for the thunder even though I'm the only one, people here understand. We love Derrick Rose because we have had tiny glimpses at places like Englewood, where Derrick Rose is from, and Maywood. As a sidenote example Dwight Howard's cousin was shot in Englewood just a couple weeks back. Basketball has been an outlet for the black community to get out of senseless violence and destructive lives. It is a great oppurtunity, though I will say a push for other ways would be ideal because lets face it there is only ten folks on a court at a time.

When it comes to the raising the age debate though I would hope that it would provide more and longer scholarships and some perspective. I by no means do I think this is the "answer" but it could help. I again find the Thunder such a great team, because I see mature and responsible players playing their heart out for a great city. Love this game and love this team. The games and championships are great, but the lives it influences and the people it brings together is something to love too.

You don't think Kerr is a racist, but you DO think his position on the age limit has racial implications whether he intends them to or not. Right? (I haven't read/heard enough of his stuff to form an overall impression.) Can't say I disagree with this.

A rule that applies in theory to everyone but in practice to mainly one race . . . You're saying that makes this rule suspect and necessitates input from the race affected--in fact, should give them the weightier voice in the matter. Okay . . . I can go with that.

You're characterizing Kerr's article as an "attempt at coercion". Coercing people to do what? I took it more as making a case for the merits of college--much like the sentiments echoed in that interview by our KD (a young black male who HAS lived this). Kerr was saying that raising the age limit would not only benefit players, but ultimately be good for the business of the league. The bottom line for him is not race, but the bottom line; i.e., it's all about the money.

While I ran with your pregnancy example, I used it more metaphorically. Think of a high school player "pregnant" with talent and potential headed (prematurely?) to the front lines of the NBA. What if it might be in his best interest to allow his talent to develop in a nurturing environment before letting him throw himself into the harsh environment of the league? (Of course, there are no guarantees . . . the miscarriages of wrecked knees/ruined careers happen in college too.) I understand you're probably saying that while this might be true--that is, he might be better off by waiting--it should still be his decision. So I'm pro-life and you're pro-choice. (Just kidding!!! Let's definitely not go there.)

*deep breath* You're not going to like this . . . but I think you're being unfair in your replies to Davy. You guys obviously disagree and have offended each other. You just can't call someone naive, foolish, arrogant, racist, superior, etc. and expect them to be receptive to anything else you might have to say. Not that he's without blame here, but it seems to me like he was extending an olive branch of sorts and you kind of elbowed it away. (I'm only telling you this, pickups, because I like you. Also, I'm realizing it might have been much smarter to remain on the sidelines.)

Finally, I'm beginning to think you and El Prez actually are related in real life. You both say "Trust me" a lot.

A. Calling my enlightened point of view naive is pretty cute. You don't know my perspective or anything about me other than what you have read here. I disagreed with you, with reason and without aggression, and you responded by calling me a racist and an arrogant fool; it was reactionary, and really displayed a lack of regard for intelligent, civil debate. I consider this childish. I have not presumed anything about you, i have only responded to your words.

B. We live on a tiny rock orbiting a very small star (relative to other stars) that is one of 100 billion in our galaxy. There are over 100 Billion (known) galaxies. I am a Geologist, and i think in terms of a 4.5 billion year old earth - on timescales that most people have never even considered. There is not room for racism in my world, we are all human earthlings. If you want to call that naive, then be my guest. Your opinion will not affect my life in any way.

C. Where is your data on the racial makeup of the camps? I'd like to see that; must have been a lot of research put into that. Is there a sports sociological journal you could refer me to? I'd really appreciate it.

D. Several people here have pointed to black basketball players/pundits who have supported raising the age limit. What? That doesn't confirm your bias so you just ignore it?

E. Even if there is a discrepancy in the racial make up of the camps, who cares? Neither is right or wrong. Nobody's opinion is less valid than another (regardless of their race), and we all have the right to express our opinions (in fact Kerr is paid to give his, so he is just doing his job). Its a simple rule that is collectively bargained and it is the same rule for all races. This is fair. How else are you going to do it?

F. Yes, i'm positive there are some true bigots out there (on all sides), but I just don't believe that race is the driving factor of the debate over when a player can enter a professional basketball league. Martin Luther King Jr. would not be happy that we are still looking at things this way.

G. We clearly disagree, and that is okay with me. It is a philosophical disagreement, it happens all the time. And it is healthy if you actually try to hear to what the other has to say instead of assuming you know everything about them.

H. Don't put words in people's mouth. It doesn't make your argument work better to try and intimidate someone by backing them into a corner, it just pisses them off and ruins good debate. And you may come out looking like an asshole. Which i'm somewhat certain you are not in your day-to-day life.

@DavyTheWise "The world will never change if we continue to see every issue as one of race, that is all i was pointing out."

You are incredibly naive, sorry. When the battle lines are so clearly delineated by race, then you have to inspect that. For you to so easily maintain that your perspective is superior is either arrogance, racism or both.

"It isn't racists as long as the same rules apply to everyone (there is no way around this no matter how "unfair" it may seem)."

It's laughable how naive you are. I could easily give you a list of 1000 rules that would specifically target one group of people but would "apply to everyone." I gave an example with the pregnancy rule yesterday. I could give you a hundred more, the point is made. You should acknowledge the following point and answer the question:

There are two camps here:

Camp 1: Raise the age limit for the NBA

Camp 2: Maintain or lower the age limit for the NBA

If you examine the racial makeup of each camp, they are very different. Why?

"Further, since Kerr is a middle-aged white guy proposing a restriction (one that you personally have yet to hear any black athlete/talking head support), this smacks of some kind of racial paternalism. [How am I doing so far? Do I understand?]"

No, I'm not implying that Steve Kerr is a racist. What I am saying is that he needs to recognize that since this is a rule that primarily affects young black males and he's never been one of those that he needs to recognize that he's never had that perspective and therefore, his opinion is less valid than those people who've experienced that perspective.

If those who've experienced that perspective are nearly unanimously against the idea then he should give pause in his attempt at coercion. I am in no way suggesting that he thinks of this as an issue of blacks and whites. I've heard the guy in numerous BS reports interviews and I truly believe he's a good guy, not racist at all. But like I said earlier, I don't think you have to be racist to do something that is racist.

"Say the military had a rule that pregnant women could not serve on the front line. (I have no real knowledge about this--just using an example.) The reasoning would be that it would be better for the woman (health and safety-wise) and ultimately lead to a stronger unit (one not compromised by the limitations inherent to pregnancy). What if this rule was proposed by a middle-aged white (never-pregnant) guy rather than a mixed-gender cadre? Would you still fault the rule? Would you call it sexist? Or would you maybe accept it as common sense no matter where the idea originated?"

It's different because to me, the argument is that on the frontline, you'd be endangering the unborn child. As a parent, I feel that I do have perspective on this issue. If you changed it to any scenario where the child wasn't endangered, then I would have a problem on it if we didn't consult women.

"Please don't be offended if you think I only prodded your statements and not the others. You're the only one who asked my opinion and the voice I feel like I know the best."

Trust me, I have no problem with your opinion or perspective. If you had told me I was an idiot and to go jump in a lake, that's fine too because, again, this is something that YOU have a perspective on and I DON'T

He speaks in glowing terms of his college time--as a "blessing" and opportunity to grow as a player and a young man. Even in his support of the status quo, he seems to be saying that much depends on the individual's circumstances, disposition, and work ethic.

@FF_pickups Chi: I'm sorry if it seemed like i was upset with you, i got a little less articulate than i usually am. non of those things were directed at what you said, i was just venting about being called a racist and arrogant fool by someone who completely misunderstood and or chose to ignore the calm rational position i was defending. I apologize.

FF: I didn't fly off the handle until you called me a rasist for pointing out that this wasn't a race issue. Either you totally misunderstood me, or you didn't really read what i said (i lean towards the latter because if you had, you would have seen that i didn't really disagree with you about the basketball side of the discussion, yet you were still trying to argue about that with me). The world will never change if we continue to see every issue as one of race, that is all i was pointing out. race plays a part in any sports discussion because we (and by we here, i mean you) see the players as members of groups (i.e. whites and blacks) instead of just as individual basketball players. the only way people could make a rule that was truely racist (and not just able to be framed as being racist by people who concern themselves soo much with race) is if the rule said that black players could come into the league at a different age than white players because of some intrinsic property of being a black athlete somehow making them different. It isn't racists as long as the same rules apply to everyone (there is no way around this no matter how "unfair" it may seem). Anyways, it was clear to me that you weren't going to see this yesterday which is why I was ready to just drop it. then you attacked my character, which i'm not one who is prepared to stand idly by for.

Okay . . . I read the Kerr article and reread all the comments above. It seems to me Kerr is arguing for the age limit on the basis that college experience benefits the individual player (maturity and development-wise) which ultimately benefits the league business-wise. YOU are attempting to make the case that this is a racial issue since the age limit--while applicable to all players--in effect predominantly (only?) impacts black players. Further, since Kerr is a middle-aged white guy proposing a restriction (one that you personally have yet to hear any black athlete/talking head support), this smacks of some kind of racial paternalism. [How am I doing so far? Do I understand?]

Jumping to your example about pregnant people . . . I see where you're coming from, but I don't think this matches up well. Why? Because men can't be pregnant (well except for that one weird case) but white basketball players DO have an opportunity to be as talented as black players coming out of high school, right? I guess you're saying there's never been a white player that has been good enough to do this, but to imply that this is ONLY attainable by blacks does strike me as a notion you might want to examine.

Let's take the pregnancy thing in this direction. Say the military had a rule that pregnant women could not serve on the front line. (I have no real knowledge about this--just using an example.) The reasoning would be that it would be better for the woman (health and safety-wise) and ultimately lead to a stronger unit (one not compromised by the limitations inherent to pregnancy). What if this rule was proposed by a middle-aged white (never-pregnant) guy rather than a mixed-gender cadre? Would you still fault the rule? Would you call it sexist? Or would you maybe accept it as common sense no matter where the idea originated?

After all this, I'm really not sure what point I'm trying to make . . . just thinking out loud since you asked. Do I think there should be an age limit for the NBA? (I don't know.) Do I think an article such as Kerr's betrays some sort of racial agenda? (No, but I guess you would disagree there.) Do I think race is a complete non-factor in any issue where the racial balance is so skewed? (No, of course not.) I DO agree with ChiThunder's statement, "Race does have a stake in this debate too. Shouldn't be ignored just because it's touchy." My conclusion? I honestly don't have one at this late hour.

Please don't be offended if you think I only prodded your statements and not the others. You're the only one who asked my opinion and the voice I feel like I know the best.

@FF_pickups Standing sidelines here because I didn't really have a firm opinion on the age issue and honestly (naively?) had never framed it racially. (And I don't want to offend either of you since you seem to both be doing a pretty good job of that yourselves.) Let me do my homework--give me some time to think on this.

@ThunderChick2010@FF_pickups Heh don't think I can continue this one much longer I got a few papers to write before I graduate Saturday. I don't really want to be my first entrance to the community one that pisses off a bunch of folk either. Which is why I chose this debate right :).

Black people should have a voice in this decision not just middle aged white people. If all involved are allowed a voice, I'm okay with it but people like Steve Kerr coming in here and not acknowledging that this decision isn't strictly his, then I have a problem with him. You don't have to be racist to do racist things.

@ThunderChick2010 I really wanted your opinion on this, Thunderchick, ;-) no standing sidelines here. What if someone passed a rule that said that pregnant PEOPLE can't do something. And then argued that it wasn't sexist because if a man was pregnant then it applied to him, too.

@FF_pickups@ChiThunder Hey basketball brother, any chance you'll do one of those we're-not-that-far-apart point by point analyses . . . or is this one too far gone? (That was probably my favorite of all your posts.)

@ChiThunder@DavyTheWise@FF_pickups Staying out of this one, but wanted to point out I don't think he was accusing YOU of putting words in his mouth or taking issue with you being a relative newcomer. (welcome!)

@DavyTheWise@FF_pickups Was not putting words in your mouth dood was going from the Ron Paul quote you posted. Not anonymous just haven't really posted before, though I've been following for awhile. Name is Troy living in Chicago and I felt like it was an intriguing discussion. Folk should probably back off personal attacks if a discussion is gonna take place. The extension of age to 20 is a complex issue and Steve Kerr did draw out reasons involving social, economic, and moral prerogatives. Race does have a stake in this debate too. Shouldn't be ignored just because its touchy. If there isn't some sense of maturity, responsibility, talent, and attitude, than 18 is an arbitrary number. Might as well be whenever the kid is good enough even if that means dropping out of high school. Unless maybe finishing high school has some benefit.

Karrem Abdul Jabbar, and Reggie Miller have all said they should raise the age. If i remember correctly so has Jalen Rose. Webber has said in a few games he thinks there should be a raise in age limit.

@ChiThunder@FF_pickups Oh and FF, if you actually were reading what I said (which i seriously doubt) you would have seen that i'm not against you as far as the bball rule. I was mostly opposing your idea that this was even a race issue in the first place.

Chi; You are right, this is a much more complicated issue, I think if they are going to have a limit that it should be raised, but as i have said three times now i think they should let 18 year olds decide what is best for them. I was just trying to make a point about racism, not about basketball. Which is why i tried to refrain from continuing the discussion here on a bball board. But i do not take kindly to having words put in my mouth. even if it is on an anonymous web profile.

@FF_pickups Yeah, that's what i said. You got me. Black people are stupid.... wow. I didn't call anyone stupid at all, although i'm thinking about it now. Refer to my above comments about how this rhetoric (you know what that means right? its related to propaganda... look it up) only perpetuates racism and ignorance. You are the perfect example in my opinion.

@DavyTheWise@FF_pickups Free market capitalism rewards liberty to those with capital, and achievement and competence is a result of liberty after having capital. I think requiring two years of college provides longer and more scholarships for the black community, which, only in a small way, helps bridge discrepancies between race (which is social and economic.) It is a complex issue that can be reduced to one term called liberty. Answers are only simple if you think the question is.

It doesn't have anything to do with being white or black. If they made a law about swimming would it be racist against white people because there are more white swimmers? That is absurd. And your opinion on things seems to be solely wrought by news media talking heads and public opinion? Have your own opinion, please.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity." Ron Paul

I don't intend to continue this discussion here, its not really an appropriate place. You are entitled to your opinion.

If White people are never good enough to get drafted out of High School, then you are specifically passing a rule that restricts black people. Right? And I have yet to hear any black talking heads in favor of this, only the white ones. If Stephen A. Smith and Michael Wilbon and the black leaders like Lebron, Kobe, Jesse Jackson etc. etc. come in here and support the idea, then I'm fine with the rule but until then, I can't in good conscience suggest such a rule. As for Gerald Green, he was a first round draft pick and made millions. He's fine. Think how much money you would be costing Lebron James, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant etc. They all made tons of money (so did Gerald Green relative to a regular collegiate) but if they went to college, they lose 3 years @ 15 m/yr plus endorsements so you are talking minimum of 75 million dollars per player.

@FF_pickups Okay. I don't agree with you, race becomes more of an issue with anything when people start throwing around rhetoric like that. Do you think Gerald Green would be better off if he had gone to school for at least a year?

I don't necessarily think the age should be raised, in fact i would rather have it more like euro leagues where if you are 14 and you can compete with the highest level athletes you could make some money. But common, do we really need it to be about race.

The race issue will never go away until we stop talking about it like this.